MARY J. BARRY, APPELLANT,
v.
FAULK INVESTMENTS, INC., AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Unemployment Appeals Commission erred in treating the claimant's request for benefits as solely related to her part-time employment, overlooking the rule that leaving part-time work does not forfeit rights to benefits from prior full-time employment.
Ms. Barry was laid off from her full-time job with Romac and took a part-time job with Faulk. She voluntarily left the Faulk job for personal reasons …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voluntary Departure From Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Mary J. Barry appeals the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (the UAC) affirming the referee’s determination that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her part-time job at Faulk Investments (Faulk). We affirm the order as to Faulk, but remand for further proceedings as to Ms. Barry’s former full-time employer. Ms. Barry worked full-time for Romac & Associates (Romac) from April 1988 until June 1990. She served as its staffing director and earned a substantial salary. She apparently was laid off because Ro-mac’s business dropped off.
While seeking another full-time job, Ms. Barry took a part-time job with Faulk. She worked three hours a day at the service counter of a dry cleaner from July 1-25, 1991. Ms. Barry does not dispute that she left the part-time job for personal reasons. At the hearing, she testified that she was seeking an extension of unemployment benefits that she apparently had been receiving as a result of her termination by Ro-mac.
Despite Ms. Barry’s efforts to make a proper claim, both the referee and the UAC treated her claim as a claim related to Faulk and not as one related to her prior employment with Romac. Ms. Barry did not forfeit her right to partial unemployment benefits from Romac when she left her part-time job with Faulk. Neese v. Sizzler Family Steak House, 404 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1982). Because the UAC overlooked the rule established in Neese, it applied the incorrect law. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings to process Ms. Barry’s claim relating to her former full-time employment. Since that claim has not been evaluated under that law and Ro-mac has never been involved in these proceedings, we express no opinion as to Ms. Barry’s entitlement to benefits from Ro-mac. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alderman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…employment. See Tierney v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 640 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Stewart v. Dollar Tree, 635 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Coelho v. Balasky, 631 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Barry v. Faulk Investments, Inc., 621 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The UAC suggests that reliance upon case law such as Neese is improper because the legislature’s recent amendment to chapter 443 was a direct response to Neese and its progeny. In this regard, the UAC cites to [*1162] section 44…
-
Tierney v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 640 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…rt time job with Bern’s. Despite that fact, the appellant should have been disqualified from benefits only to the extent that his benefits would have been decreased by the income from his part time employment. Wright; see Barry v. Faulk Invs., Inc., 621 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). [*156] We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to award the appellant partial unemployment compensation benefits from his previous full time employment with First Florida Bank. Reversed and remanded with instructio…
-
Rochussen v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Opinion Research Corp., 795 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ause she did not want to be a burden on society and because she tried a part-time job that was not compatible with her primary obligation to find suitable, full-time employment. She fits into a cluster of cases including: Barry v. Faulk Invs., Inc., 621 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Stewart v. Dollar Tree, 635 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Coelho v. Balasky, 631 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Tierney v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 640 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Berger v. Asolo Ctr., 686 So. 2d 649…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neese v. Sizzler Fam. Steak House & Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 404 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)